Innocence of Muslims:Another Zionist Provocation

What motivated an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian, “Sam Bacile” (real name [1]) to make a film that was guaranteed to inflame Muslims across the world? Until now, Nakoula’s only notoriety is as a criminal, a bankrupt, and an ex-convict rather than as a committed activist for any cause other than his own financial well-being.[2]

What sparked the riots and violence across the Muslim world was not the movie, per se, which is called Desert Warrior, “which was a bust, a wash,” according to “consultant, ” Steve Klein,[3] but the more widely seen YouTube trailer called Innocence of Muslims.

Nakuola is hardly known for his selflessness. He had been declared bankrupt in 2000 and had been involved in criminal schemes before and since. Thus to become the frontman and hence the fall-guy for an action that was obviously also going to place him in extreme danger, he must surely have been offered a sizable financial incentive. A Los Angeles Times report states of Nakoula:

. . . Some of those activities were criminal. He was convicted on state drug charges in 1997. In 2010, he was convicted in an identity theft scheme. According to the court file, Nakoula, who ran gas stations in Hawaiian Gardens, operated under a dizzying array of aliases, including Kritbag Difrat. He was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and was released last summer.[4]

Zionist Steve Klein

The individual that soon emerged as the “significant other” behind Nakoula is Steve Klein, a leading neocon Zionist associated with Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes in what one Jewish investigative journalist, Max Blumenthal, calls the “Axis of Islamophobia.”[5] Klein is credited as the script consultant.[6]

Klein, a Vietnam veteran, has made a name for himself for finding “al Qaeda cells” in California and leading “anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools.” Klein claimed to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that he did not know Bacile’s real name but that Bacile had sought him out due to his prominence in agitating against Islam. For someone who claims that ferreting out Muslim terrorist cells in the USA is “a piece of cake,”[7] Klein’s claim of ignorance about Bacile seems unlikely. The more likely scenario is that Nakoula was selected by Zionist handlers as someone who could be paid to do their bidding.

Klein told Goldberg: “After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me.” Klein sounds like more than the usual two-bit neocon Islamophobic agitator, and we are entitled to ask, “who looked for whom?”

Klein assured Goldberg that “Israel is not involved” and stated that Nakoula’s original claim to having been an “Israeli Jew” “is a disinformation campaign.” So does this mean that Klein, the pro-Zionist, Islamophobe, is claiming that he was willingly (or unwillingly?) part of a Muslim-serving “disinformation campaign?” Was the man who is so canny that he finds uncovering al Qaeda cells in California “a piece of cake,” duped by a low-class criminal? Or is it more plausible that Klein recruited Nakoula?

Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador to Libya, one of the first to be slain in violence over “Innocence of Muslims”

It seems clear that the film was intended to be a provocation that would incite anti-Israel sentiments just as much as anti-American, with the aim of generating a mass backlash of resentment against Muslims. Nakoula was claiming “that he raised the $5 million to make the film from ‘more than 100 Jewish donors’.”[8]

Why was Nakoula deliberately inciting Muslims to anti-Israel sentiment, along with anti-US sentiment, if not to provide a pretext for an American-Israeli military reaction? In particular, why were the two main Copts behind the film creating a situation that could only place their fellow Copts in Egypt and elsewhere in extreme danger from Muslims?

Somehow Nakoula had sufficient contacts, we are supposed to believe, to bring together a multinational task force of some Copts but mostly “Evangelicals” from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt.[9] However, it is Klein who states that he is “trusted” by “Middle East Christians,” which presumably means Copts, and hence it would not be difficult for Klein to track down a dubious character with financial troubles, who could be induced to take the rap for enough cash. If nothing else, he could have simply consulted his Coptic colleague Nassralla, whose company Media for Christ, made the movie.

Klein’s Islamophobic Actions

Max Blumenthal reports that Steve Klein writes on Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim, Zionist website Atlas Shrugs,[10] Geller apparently being a bit of a name in the neocon movement.[11] Klein is also supported by Robert Spencer’s “Jihad Watch,” which promoted a “9/11 Rally at Ground Zero” involving Klein, as “founder of the Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment” and, of particular interest, “The courageous Coptic Christian activist Joseph Nasralla,” founder of The Way TGV satellite network.[12] Klein is also “founder of Courageous Christians United.”[13]

Joseph Nasralla and Pamela Geller

Klein, despite the suggestive character of his name, is not Jewish, as far as can be ascertained. He would appear, rather, to be yet another Evangelical Shabbos Goy.

However, despite the amateur nature of the film which is in fact a 14 minute “trailer,” Nakoula/Bacile was backed by a well-established Evangelical media production company, Media for Christ run by Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, although Abdelmasih is in hiding and denying involvement while simultaneously stating he was “logistics manager.” The company claims to be upset and repudiates the film, “But Duarte’s deputy city manager said she had been told by sheriff’s officials that the permits to shoot the movie had been issued to Media for Christ.”[14]

As stated above, Robert Spencer’s “Jiahd Watch” has referred Joseph Nasralla of the Way TV, which the LA Times reports is the satellite network for Media for Christ. The LA Times reports of Steve Klein that his “views have been tracked by Muslim groups and others for years. One of his platforms was a weekly show on Media for Christ’s satellite network, The Way TV.”[15] Hence there is a close association between Klein and the pro-Israeli Copt Nassralla of Media for Christ, both of whom were involved in a “9/11 Remembrance Rally.” The LA Times further states:

While Media for Christ public filings describe it as an evangelical organization working to spread the Gospel, Nassralla has devoted himself in recent years to criticizing Islam in speeches and interviews. With Klein, Nassralla joined in accusations that Sheriff Lee Baca was embracing the Muslim Brotherhood by allying with a prominent Muslim American civil rights group.

“I fled to America with my family because of the violence directed against me for my Christian faith,” Nassralla was quoted as saying last year on an anti-Islamic website. “Sheriff Baca must be fired, and the County must apologize to all of us who have suffered at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

In a 2010 speech in New York, Nassralla criticized violence against Christians in Egypt and deplored plans to build a mosque near the former World Trade Center site in New York. “Wake up, America. . . . Stop Islamicization of America,” he said. [16]

Just how “Christian” the motivation behind the film is can be surmised from its director, Alan Roberts, a veteran of the “soft porn” genre.[17]

As for Klein, despite at first seeming to downplay his involvement, he is unrepentant. The film is doing its job in manipulating Muslims into another Zionist-contrived PR disaster: “Do I have blood on my hands? No. Did I kill this guy? No. . . . Do I feel guilty that these people were incited? Guess what? I didn’t incite them. They’re pre-incited, they’re pre-programmed to do this.”[18]

The Modus Operandi of Provocation and Conflict

The scenario and outcome are close to a similar contrivance several years ago, the publishing of caricatures of Mohammed, by the same types of people.

The Mohammed cartoon saga was symptomatic of the “clash of civilizations” that Israel and its Shabbos Goyim want to foist on “The West.” The cartoons published in Denmark were a contrived provocation against Muslims with the same purpose as the Innocence of Muslims film.

They were first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands‑Posten at the instigation of its “cultural editor,” Flemming Rose, a follower of anti-Muslim neocon guru Daniel Pipes, editor of Middle East Forum. After Rose visited Pipes in 2004 he wrote a puff piece on Pipes. When rioting occurred as the result of Rose’s publication of the cartoons, Pipes, like Klein regarding the present riots, blamed the situation on “Islamic extremists,” while then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the Syrian and Iranian governments because of protests in those states. Pipes then issued a clarion call to fight the “Muslim extremists” by appealing to The West’s secular-liberal values:

Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise. Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.[19]

Pipes cited one of his fellow Islamophobes: “Robert Spencer rightly called on the free world to stand ‘resolutely with Denmark.’ The informative Brussels Journal asserts, ‘We are all Danes now.’”

Like the Danish cartoon violence, the same Islamophobic coteries, while distancing themselves from such a crass film and trailer, are quick enough to jump on the bandwagon against Islam, Pipes stating: “The anger is there. But it’s more than anger. It is a deliberate effort since 1989 to tell us in the west that we have to play by the rules of Sharia.” Pamela Geller writes:

[The film] It was not the cause of these riots and murders. The film was on YouTube for months before the Muslim rage over it began, and that rage was clearly carefully planned and orchestrated. The film is just a pretext to justify the violence and intimidate the West into adopting Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech, so that jihad can advance unimpeded and unopposed in the West. And you, by focusing on the film and demonizing the filmmakers, are abetting that.[20]

Robert Spencer, casting Nakoula in martyr mode, however, writes that if Nakoula is sent back to jail it will be “not for the meth or the fraud or for the technicality of the probation violation, but for insulting Muhammad. His imprisonment will be a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. If Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is imprisoned, he will be nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.”[21]

Rubbish. The premise being assumed by Roosevelt and promoted by you is that government is nearly all powerful and all-knowing, thus nothing happens that it does not know about or approve or plan. This is the ludicrous premise of a lot of 9/11 Truthers and other conspiracy types.

FR, take a look at my recent, extensive blog quoting of Tom Goodrich’s book on the Allied Holocaust perpetrated on innocent Germans. It’s truly revisionist in every sense of the word, but unlike the conspiracy theories so popular in white nationalist circles, the author doesn’t need to swallow the claims that Roosevelt knew that the Japs were about to attack US territory (or other improbable WW2 claims).

There is no doubt whatsoever FDR knew about the attack. An attack is what he wanted; his Pacific policy was designed to provoke a Japanese attack just as the Lend Lease agreement and his violations of the Neutrality Act were designed to provoke the Germans.

While it can’t be proven, I don’t think peripheral state involvement via intelligence agencies is out of the question with this anti-Islam film. I’ve been told the Arabic dubbing makes the lines even more offensive. Somebody with English/Arabic skills translated it into Arabic just in time for 9/11. Interesting.

You don’t think it’s strange that our Embassy was virtually undefended? And the Muslims sodomized the ambasador – both before and after his death. Despicable. This is their loyalty to their Western friends who put them in power.

Writing that this movie is a “provocation” is similar to saying that a woman wearing a short skirt at night is inviting rape. It’s not the movie that slaughtered the American ambassador in Benghazi, but Muslim fanaticism alone.

You seem to be assuming a false dichotomy, namely that EITHER the provocateur OR the criminal is responsible for the act, but both cannot be. That’s false. Both are responsible, because both actually caused the fact. No film no mob, no mob, no mayhem.

This movie is an astonishingly crude provocation, and nothing else, and the results were entirely predictable. The people behind it have blood on their hands, and so do the mobs in the Muslim world and their organizers.

Time for some to stop giving the Counter-Jihad movement the benefit of the doubt just because we share a common enemy. These people are our enemies as well. They are fomenting violence and death to pursue Zionist aims.

On the other hand, here I must side Roman Bernard. According to your logic, should Martin Scorsese been held accountable if, after filming The Last Temptation of Christ, a fanatic nun blew a movie theater killing dozens?

I may dislike Larry Auster’s philo-Semitism. But I agree that Auster’s “First Law” is very insightful to understand the blame-the-victim, liberal ethos that has been weakening the West: “The worse a non-Western group behaves, the more we blame ourselves”.

Don’t be obtuse: there is a difference between erotica and porn, and there is a difference between The Last Temptation of the Christ and Innocence of Muslims. LOOK at Innocence of Muslims. It is utterly crude and stupid. It offends me, and I despise Islam. This was created merely to offend and stir up trouble. Morally, that makes the people involved with this film RESPONSIBLE for the predictable consequences of their acts. Of course in our sometimes liberal society, that does not make them legally responsible. (Only white racists would be held legally responsible.)

Blame “ourselves”? I blame them: the Jews and their tools. They are not and never have been “us.”

I am not “obtuse” Greg. If you don’t like my example above, just think in Madonna’s masturbating with crucifixes in one of her shows: something utterly crude and stupid that offends me, and I despise Christianity. Madonna’s show was created merely to offend and stir up trouble. Does Madonna’s actions in the real world excuse our hypothetical “fanatic nun” deed in a theatre, or the killing of an ambassador and many others after (our imagined) Christian riots throughout the Western world?

My personal opinion about such acts of provocation is simple: I would declare that the people who are responsible for them will receive no special protection by the state. I would not abridge their freedom of speech. I would punish anybody who tries to kill them. But I would take no special steps to prevent that. We would have a lot fewer assholes and liars if we returned to older doctrines of “fighting words” and even dueling over matters of honor.

Come on. See the very recent Bugs Bunny caricature in “France: Magazine’s Muhammad cartoons prompt France to shut embassies in 20 countries”. It’s not even blasphemous. Can’t you see that Muslims and Muslims alone are overreacting? Trying to implement blasphemy laws in the US under the excuse of “Islamophobia” (the word often used in the above article) would rapidly lead to prohibiting criticism of Jews under the excuse of “anti-Semitism”.

Besides Donar van Holland and me, the most recent commenter in my blog, Mary (who has just left a very beautiful post), also had come from the “Vienna School”. If counter-jihadists are really our enemies, how do you explain that Breivik wrote his treatise under the influence of Robert Spencer, Gates of Vienna, etc., but that in his trial he seems to have matured and started to speak as a white nationalist?

I see no account of the Muslims’ responsibility in Kerry Bolton’s piece (which surprises me, as his articles are usually fair and balanced).

I have the feeling, when I read about “provocations” to the Muslim faith, that the Whites criticizing these “provocations” actually see Muslims as animals: if you provocate them, they will mechanically kill innocents, so you’re, in a way, their accomplice.

Not that I see Muslims in a very different way, but if it’s the image you have of them, it should be said.

I became racially conscious in 2009 thanks to the very first step in my awakening: reading Robert Spencer and his efforts to wake up whites about the Islamization of the West.

It’s true that after I became conscious of the JP I see the necessity of a tactical, provisional alliance with the Muslim World until the Jews are exposed and defeated. Nevertheless, using Newspeak terms such as “Islamophobia”, “Islamophobe” and “Islamophobic” (the equivalent to Larry Auster’s constant use of the term “anti-Semite!!”) cannot but remind me a sentence of Michael O’Meara’s best article at this site last year:

Knowing only their caricature of the inner enemy, they [the “single Jewish causers” who only focus on the JQ at the expense of the other problems] also either ignore the outer enemy (the colored world), treat it as a friend, or consider it a mere adversary. The West’s 1400-year conflict with Islam and its various conflictual relations with the non-white world are thereby reduced to Jewish machinations, dismissed, in effect, as an actual danger to Europe’s destiny and to the True America born of Europe.

It seems to me that the Jews, in spite of all their cleverness, sow themselves the seeds of their destruction. Probably it is due to their shortsightedness, their greed for short term gains. Fomenting of Islam-hatred may be positive for the interests of Israel now, but in the long run the Jews may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

For counter-Jihad can lead fairly easily to pro-whiteness. Through counter-Jihad the Jews permit Europeans for the first time since the war to draw a clear line dividing ‘us’ and ‘them’. This enables a European consciousness. And when that develops, more lines may be drawn…

I may be projecting my own trajectory unto others here, but there are other examples, such as the people from “As der Schwerter”.

So let the Zionists stoke the hate for Islam, whites are bound to profit from it.

Jews are not that clever, given their long record of failure. They have a dominance strategy which they apply relentlessly, fanatically, recklessly. They have no brakes. It works well on the straightway, but when they come to a curve, they end up in the ditch over and over again.

My sentiment is no sympathy for Islam, no accomodations, no alliance, no stance other than Islam is our implacable enemy. Zionists are the logical suspects for being behind this film, but if Muslims weren’t so simple-minded and barbaric this type of Zionist trick wouldn’t work. The trick’s effectiveness depends on Muslims being predictably stupid. The US government is occupying their lands, bombing them and using drones against them, yet they rush the walls over a film clip. They might earn a little deserved sympathy if they rushed the embassies every time a family was killed by a drone and if they made this motive clear and if they didn’t assume they’re entitled to move to the West. I use these flareups as an opportunity to argue for keeping Muslims out of Western lands while still highlighting the Jewish manipulation.

Yes, we need to always use these incidents to make our points, not get locked into the frameworks of our enemies. A consistent pro-white position on these matters is:

1. We wish to have good relations with Muslims in their homelands, but we want no Muslims in our homelands.
2. Jews are our enemies. Their agenda is to stir up bad relations between whites and Muslims in the Muslim world, while flooding the white world with Muslims.
3. All questions of amicable relations and common interests with Muslims must be postponed until (a) we free ourselves from Jewish power and (b) Muslims leave white lands. I sympathize with the Palestinians because I too live under Zionist occupation. But that sympathy means nothing compared to the fact that we are under Zionist occupation and are experiencing Islamic colonization.

Allright, but – I have a hard time seeing the actual shape of the framework.

Bolton’s strong anti-Zionist affects make him for my taste side with the Muslims to much, up to a point where he almost seems to excuse them. Anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe might be held and guided on a Zionist leash to a big extent; but it is very real, and it is very justified, and who says that the horse won’t kick its rider one day? Only if we happen to agree with Zionists or pro-Zionist people on many points regarding Islam doesn’t mean we must be wrong. I do not even think Zionism is wrong per se, as there are many advantages of the Jews having a homeland. Alas for the poor Palestinians, but in unfair History there is always somebody who has to take the part of the screwed. I also think one has to discard the idea that all Zionists form a unity or are all subject to some Elders of Zion style master plan. Yes, I know. Don’t tell me. Things might be much more confused and chaotic than that. We have to ask, what is good for us? What can we use, while watch out not being used?

First, I see the Jyllands-Posten story quite different. When the cartoon was released exactly nothing happened until Denmark-based Salafi-Djihadists deliberately produced some extra blasphemical cartoons (like a praying Muslim sodomized by a dog etc) and presented them as stuff released in Denmark alongside the famous bomb-head Mohammed pic to spice up the news for their Umma brethren. It was only then when the riots started.

Make no mistake: radical Islamist groups miss no opportunity to escalate. That is their style of Djihad. They talk about being “offended” all the time, while actually they get off of it a big deal. And because of that it wasn’t necessary to produce a better quality film; whoever is behind it did know that this infantile pathethic piece would do the job.

Next, I don’t get Bolton’s point here as well. Is he blaming the Danish cartoonist and Jyllandsposten? Should Western cartoonists really be intimidated because some Muslims might freak out? Should they always have to think what the Muslims are going to say about it? Or should Western cartoonists not be justified to criticize and satirize Islam, because some Zionists might agree? Am I missing something here?

I take it for granted that the “film” was deliberately set up to stir up trouble in the Middle East and probably elsewhere as well. At least it seems very likely so. Dubbings in Arab were distributed in early September, right on time for the upcoming anniversary of 9/11 (I’m basically with the “Truthers” on this matter, btw). I can imagine that Zionists would have an interest to make the Muslim world really look bad again and possibly create a situation that could justify military interventions.

However, the situation in Europe, where I live, is entirely different. Here the intimidation is really tangible, and the problem is rather that Muslims are made to look too good rather than too bad by the media and the immigration lobby. You must not say anything nasty about them, or else… Multicult propaganda machines tell you day-in, day-out, that it is only evil extremists that “distort” Islam, and that Islam really “belongs to Germany,” as the corrupt ex-president Wulff infamously said in a speech on Unification Day. No one actually feels the way except the Muslims for whom it means nothing more than that they want their share of the cake. But European countries like UK, France and Germany are by now full of Muslim Fifth columns, whose potential threat of violence is already taken for granted.

In Berlin, a German Wilders-style party announced their intention to publicly screen “Innocence…” Now, I guess it’s a bluff and a PR-stunt, because obviously there isn’t much to show except the 14 minutes from YT (btw, all parts referring to Islam and Mohammed are badly and obviously dubbed onto the soundtrack, it seems that it is true what participating actors said, that they had no idea they were making anti-Muslim agitprop).

But this provocation made latent power structures visible: the Minister of the Interior called for a ban of the movie, a Turkish-born senator for “integration” matters called upon a boycott etc., the head of the German Muslim Council warned (or rather threatened) that there would be violent riots (he does know his people), etc. So everybody went ballistic and hysterical. And all this after weeks we had been told how evil Russia was for sending the Porno Pussies to Siberia for a blasphemy charges and for not allowing free speech.

The reason is that German politicians, authorities, media are indeed afraid of potential Muslim violence, and they already act according to their wishes. That is the case in many Western countries. Pamela Geller is completely right about that. With a growing percentage of Muslims in the population, this will increase in the future: it will show that in a multicultural society the dominating group will be the one that has the most potential for threat and violence. The provocation of the “Pro-Deutschland” party has brought that to light. Likewise, the death threats and terrorist acts following the Danish cartoons made millions of Europeans aware of the dangers of Muslim immigration. Bad thing?

If the Jyllandsposten connections are such as Bolton describes, then thanks to Pipes, Rose and the cartoonists for that. And thanks to the Danish Djihadists for being dumb enough of not following Amr Khaled’s advice to keep the bombs and daggers shelved, as demographics are in their favor anyway:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M54VYnyfGE

Islam within the gates of Europe is indeed an enemy, and therefore there can be no tactical alliance with the Muslim world possible. European nationalists might say, yes, we can be all right with you if you stay in your own countries and help us kick Zionism – but that is delusional, because the Muslims want all of the cake, and see apparently no reason to withdraw the foot they have in our doors already.

Now, also images of Muslims storming and burning the German Embassy in Sudan won’t exactly endear Germans to their Muslim fellow citizens or to further Muslim immigration. If Zionists were behind the “Innocence of Muslims” bomb they also provoked strong antipathy against Muslim presence in Europe. Now again, from a pro-white, pro-European pov, is that a bad thing?

And at this point I cannot see the likes of Spencer, Geller, Pipes as enemies merely because they are also pro-Zionist and pro-Israel. None of these to my knowledge favors Muslim immigration to Europe or US or multiculturalism,on the contrary. If there is a globalist double strategy of invite them/invade them, the pro-Zionist/Israel counter-jihadists are not advocating that, and it would make no sense at all to assume that they are doing this secretly.

I don’t have a final conclusion here, maybe some commentator might want to share their thoughts.

Yes, I liken the Islamic world to a hive of bees, which our Zionist overlords are compelling us to stoke. Our sole interest in the middle east is to keep the honey (=petroleum) flowing. Dont mind bees; dont want them in my house.

Just some thoughts here. Muslims are Whites’ enemies, a grave demographic threat, particularly in Europe. On the other hand, their hatred of Jews is advantageous to some extent. I don’t think most Whites, or White Nationalists, give a fig about the plight of the Palestinians, though we may have a little sympathy for groups disadvantaged by Jews, alien though they may be to us in most respects.

I second the motion that this movie is a 2-bit, half-assed production, certainly not the product of a Jewish conspiracy at high levels. A proper movie/plot would have had at least some production value. The riots and demonstrations were, I believe, the release of pent-up frustration with the US, mostly for it’s policies in the Mideast.

I support the Middle Easterners in their protests, while I don’t like them, I believe they have been royally screwed over by the U.S. Libyans are not going to benefit from the deposition of Gaddafi, they are going to see their situation deteriorate, as their attempt to build a democracy is going to bomb (Libya’s genepool has quite a bit of African influence), and Gaddafi was a pretty good character as far as dictators go, he had a pretty good system splitting the oil revenues and providing socialized goods and services to the masses.

Lastly, I admire the fanaticism of these Middle Easterners, they have balls, they have spirit, they have willpower, and they are ready to engage in violence to defend their beliefs and culture. This is commendable, Whites need this. Maybe if we could capture samples of the Middle-Easterners’ BO or whatever is energizing them, we could create a supplement to energize Whites, and awake them from their state of anemic, effeminate apathy.

I know ‘truthers’ are generally crazy but a it’s a little difficult to accept the 9-11 official story.
I don’t think the former Italian Prime Minister’s comments are ludicrous in the least, and I think he may know more than a few internet bloggers.http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20071209.htm

Just one thing about Palestine, as some commentators seem to be sympathetic with the alleged plight of the “Palestinians”: Palestine used to be a Roman province, then a Byzantine one. It was conquered by the Muslim Arabs in a similar way than how Israel invaded it. Seeing it Jewish should bother us, to be sure, but not more than seeing it Muslim. We really shouldn’t care about “Palestinians”.

JQ vs. Moslem evil aside-how did this Coptic Christian get in the United States? It isn’t much of a jump to believe this guy is a “refugee” or immigrant. If so, he isn’t doing his American hosts any favors.

I think you are mostly projecting your own anti-globalist politics onto these Muslim rioters, and imagining that they are protesting for the same reasons you would be if you were in their place. This is something that liberals do to criminals or terrorists, claiming that they carry out their attacks because of “poverty” or “injustice” and so on. Perhaps these angry Muslims would be justified in protesting against American meddling in their country, and against globalization, but by all appearances they’re just behaving like animals because their prophet was insulted.

This stuff has nothing to do with a reaction to Western liberalism, because it is ongoing and world-wide. Muslims carry out similar riots in Thailand, in Pakistan, in India, basically wherever they live adjacent to non-Muslims. They are always outraged at something that “demands” that their religion’s honour be defended. These Muslims are always chimping out about something. Trying to piggy-back your own WN anti-Zionism cause onto their protests is just providing them with an undeserved excuse.

Who said anything about excusing these people? Exposing a Zionist conspiracy to stir up violence in the Muslim world is not the same thing as excusing that violence. It just adds to our picture of who is culpable.

Speaking about counter-jihadism… In this “Glazov Gang” video, the last of a series about Innocence of Muslims and the murder of the American ambassador, a Christian interviews three Jews. It shows what’s horribly wrong with the mind of Christian Zionists. Pay special attention to how the interviewer identifies the suffering of Jews through history with the suffering of the crucified (presumably the new Jesus).

That Raimondo/Spencer exchange was hilarious. Not that we have a dog in that fight, but I think Spencer won that one hands down. He made Raimondo look like a fool even though Raimondo’s main point is almost certainly correct: some form of Zionists (Jewish, Christian, neocon or other) with a very firm grasp of Muslim stupidity had to be behind that film. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.

Raimondo discredited himself, however, with his baseless speculation about Spencer and Geller, his disgusting apologetics for Islam, and, bizarrely, his failure to defend the film on free speech grounds even though he is a libertarian.

I didn’t know Spencer opposed the Iraq/Afghanistan interventions. That’s interesting. If true, it certainly undercuts the claim Spencer is a reflexive neocon or that his agenda is exactly equivalent to the US government’s and Israel’s.

That said, we WNists have to resist getting pulled into fighting for anyone other than ourselves.

The question is: how do we oppose Islam without supporting Jewish objectives and vice versa?

Obviously, Jews are always trying to drag Whites into their fights with Islam. However, there is no reason to believe Muslims do not or will not try the reverse: attempt to drag us into their fights with Israel by pushing anti-Zionist/anti-Israel positions that many White folks have shown themselves to be open to. The goal would be to get Whites fighting for the Palestinians or Iranians instead of for themselves.

Israel versus Palestine or Iran is not our fight. In fact, we should probably hope the twin beasts of Islam and Judaism destroy each other.